Case Digest (G.R. No. 140862)
Facts:
Wilson Go and Peter Go v. Anita Rico, G.R. No. 140862, April 25, 2006, the Supreme Court Second Division, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.On August 28, 1997, petitioners Wilson Go and Peter Go filed a Complaint for Ejectment (Civil Case No. 18315) in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 40, Quezon City, against several occupants including Pilar Rico (now deceased), whose daughter Anita Rico is the present respondent. The petitioners alleged they were registered owners of the subject lots (TCT No. 170475) and that tenants whose leases had expired refused to vacate despite notice that the petitioners needed the premises for their exclusive use.
Defendants answered, asserting the premises formed part of the estate of the late Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, which was subject to probate proceedings (SP Proc. No. Q94‑20661, RTC, Branch 95). They alleged longstanding leases, a purported sale by Bella Guerrero (then special administratrix) to the petitioners that led to Guerrero’s removal, and the appointment of Resurrecion Bihis as administratrix who allegedly renewed the leases with the defendants. Defendants thus contended petitioners had no right to eject them.
The MeTC (Decision dated July 10, 1998) ruled for the petitioners and ordered ejectment, holding the only issue in ejectment is physical possession and that the defendants were possessors by tolerance required to vacate upon demand; the MeTC awarded possession to the plaintiffs and attorney’s fees. Only respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 222, Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q98‑35559).
The RTC, in a Decision also dated July 10, 1998, reversed the MeTC and dismissed the ejectment complaint. The RTC found the defendant produced lease contracts and evidence of renewed leases with the estate’s new administratrix and concluded that resolution of de facto possession could not be separated from de jure title because of the pending reconveyance action; thus a prejudicial question as to title existed and the defendant’s possession should not be disturbed.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 53342, on July 6, 1999. The CA dismissed the petition outright in a Resolution dated August 16, 1999 for failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping required by Rule 42, finding the certification was signed by petitioners’ counsel rather than by the petitioners themselves. Counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration with a later‑submitted certification signed by one petitioner and explained that both petitioners were abroad when the petition was filed and that she possessed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to represent them in the MeTC proceedings. The CA denied reconsideration in its November 25, 1999 Resolution.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45). They argued the CA should ha...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss the petition for failure to file a certification against forum shopping signed by the petitioners themselves?
- Do a belated certification against forum shopping and a Special Power of Attorney executed in favor of counsel cure the defect of an original certification...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)